Never Breach a Condition Precedent
Protective Safeguard Endorsement is a Condition Precedent for There to be Coverage
Barry Zalma
just now
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE
Status is online
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE • You Insurance claims expert, consultant at Barry Zalma, Inc. and author/Publisher at ClaimSchool, Inc. 8m8 minutes ago
Leave a comment
Share
Excellence in Claims Handling is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gWrNHJXx and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gW8h4kTN and at https://lnkd.in/gf9GbefX and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4400 posts.
In Mama K’s Diner, LLC v. AMCO Insurance Company, F082800, California Court of Appeals, Fifth District (January 17, 2023) the trial court granted summary judgment to AMCO Insurance because the insured did not maintain a promised automatic fire alarm system.
FACTS
Mama K’s sued AMCO for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, contending the damage is covered under the insurance policy it bought from AMCO. AMCO denies there is coverage because Mama K’s did not have an automatic fire alarm as required by the policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for AMCO.
As part of the insurance policy application, the broker submitted a form that erroneously stated Mama K’s had a central station fire alarm. AMCO issued Mama K’s an insurance policy with a “Protective Safeguards” endorsement conditioning coverage for fire damage on Mama K’s maintaining an automatic fire alarm protecting the entire building.
The policy warned:
‘YOU RISK THE LOSS OF CERTAIN INSURANCE COVERAGE AT PREMISES DESIGNATED IN THE DECLARATIONS IF YOU FAIL TO MAINTAIN ANY OF THE APPLICABLE PROTECTIVE SAFEGUARDS, LISTED BY SYMBOL IN THE DECLARATIONS FOR EACH PREMISES.’
On December 26, 2018, a fire caused substantial damage to the restaurant. Mama K’s submitted a claim to AMCO. The fire happened at 1:00 a.m. when no one was inside the restaurant to press the “fire” button on the keypad.
DISCUSSION
The Breach Of Contract Cause Of Action
The Court of Appeal concluded the grant of summary judgment on the first cause of action was proper based on the theory of breach alleged in the complaint.
The maintenance of the automatic fire alarm was a condition precedent for fire coverage which Mama K’s failed to satisfy, and therefore Mama K’s cannot maintain its suit against AMCO for breach of contract.
The judgment was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
Conditions precedent are important promises made by an insured. In this case Mama K’s promised to maintain an automatic fire alarm system as a condition of coverage for fire. Mama K’s failed to do so, it only had an automatic burglar alarm, and failed to keep its promise. People insured, just like insurers, must keep the promises they make. Mama K’s found out what happens when they failed to keep the promises made.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Go to substack at https://lnkd.in/gEEnV7Dd Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gEEnV7Dd
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is available at
Excellence in Claims Handling is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
Posted on September 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in educing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Long Island Rep. Laura Gillen Is Taking Aim At Criminals Who Have Been Caught Staging Car Accidents.
Time for a Federal Crime of Insurance Fraud
The accidents may be shams, but the felonies would be real. On Thursday, Gillen (D-NY) introduced the Stop Auto Fraud Act of 2026, which would make the “crash for cash” practice a federal offense punishable by up to 10 years behind bars, with sentence enhancements for smash-ups causing injury or death.
Rep. Laura Gillen is hoping her bipartisan bill will become law to give prosecutors a federal crime to prosecute cash for crash ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
